What makes a good map for you?

[Lt_Kettch]

After not playing RO for a long time I fired it up again and played a round on Smolensk Statlemate despite the fact that it won the competition (once upon a time ) what can I say? ... I don't like it

I don't like it because it is basically a tube no real room for maneuver, the playable area is pretty small (you always hide in the same houses), the arty is annoying (it can nearly be placed on the spawns) and the shellholes are so freaking deep

But then I noticed I don't really know what makes a map good, is it the graphics? Is it a necessity for a good map to have a unique look?

Do you have a favorite layout? (Objectives in a row or lots of recappable stuff?)

What do you like about combined arms maps? I always think the balance is completly wrong, tanks are too strong so it gets boring and without a vehicle a single infantry man is useless (unless he has a Faust which makes him too powerful again)

Or is everybody just playing tank maps nowadays?

I still think maps like Danzig are the best despite the nades and the SMGs you always have many different paths you can take.

 

[Psycho_Sam]

I think a map that offers gameplay varied enough that everytime you play something different can happen. Its no fun for me to play a map when I know exactly what is going to happen. Also different types of gameplay, so intense CQC in a tunnel or open fields for rifles. Im not suggesting you cram it all into one map, but not just one type or it can get a bit monotonous.

 

[slavek]

"I always think the balance is completly wrong, tanks are too strong so it gets boring and without a vehicle a single infantry man is useless"

This

 

[illinifan]

either something epic, like berezina, although I can only play these once in a while

or a large map that offers different gameplay styles like leningrad and zhitomir

and the nostalgic maps for me(konigs and stalingrad) which i like because that was all i played for my first few months of RO. this is despite the maps having a poor layout imo

 

[Tontoman]

Open big maps where rifles come into their own. MGs come into use as they now have angles to work with. After all no crosshairs, rifles, bullet balistics, armor, arty etc are all the things that make RO special.

Combined arms maps where tanks are limited 1-2 per side MAX. Not that I don't like inf only. Single tank on big map is not a problem as there's a way around. And playing hide and seek VS tanks is cool with the proper map design. I LIKE the fact I might have to hit the dirt and crawl for 10 seconds to get to cover going 'oh crap' all the way as a tank or MG tries to punch holes in me. I like watching and timing the turret and running when it's looking away, hearing the shots hit the building I just got behind as he was a second late. It's why I play RO and not DoD/CS, that slower pace.

Multiple paths, just one way through makes for nade spam etc. But also not too unstructured where can just run around anywhere, where you are just as likely to be shot in the back as shot from the front. That's a real hard one for map makers to balance. Too closed it gets choked, nade spamy, perdictable. Too open becomes deathmatch.

------

Danzig for me is an example of the worst map for RO, it shows off nothing of RO gameplay strengths. It's CS with RO weapons, running around nade spamming and hip shooting (would be bunnyhopping if RO allowed it). But I guess it is easier to hop into as it is like CS/DoD and CS and DoD still have bigger numbers than RO. But for me if I'm going to be playing Danzig, I might as well log off and fire up DoD for the same gameplay but better DM style controls.

T.

 

[Zetsumei]

my preferred maps when breaking them down would have the following assets.
I play RO maps generally loads of time, because of that the most important thing for me is that the map can feel fresh. This for me is primarily obtained with the following.

Multiple fronts (and capzones) to fight on preferably far away from each other. So you really have to choose which front you have to fight at. Not as important for public but for clanmatches choosing to defend 1 stronghold or multiple at the same time can give interesting play where the "best tactic" of how to cap or defend can and probably will change from time to time.

Multiple ways to get to the objectives preferably from all sides to the objectives. Walls, bushes, relief, trenches, tree lines etc can all make it so that effectively rather than covering 1 flank (and every person overseeing everything of it turning in a big meatgrind) dividing the flanks up that cannot all be overwatched from single positions. So that in case an enemy attack is focused heavily on one flank, the key to holding a defense is good communications. Rather than a win only being decided by what team got better shots.

Not overfilling a map. It ircs me that in ostfront in a lot of maps on alot of streets there are sandbags broken vehicles or other stuff mashed onto roads. Not every place of a map has to be favorable to every class.

Somewhat realistic class loadouts, one of the things i liked about red orchestra was that classes were limited. It simply does me pain on a 50 player server to see the lowest amount of of players on the weaponclass that realistically had the highest numbers.

Offer both long and short range combat.
A good example of this was the Berlin map of the mod (how ugly and unrealistic it might have been), where you had heavy smg capzone action, while inbetween buildings there were extremely long open streets.
Where for capping an objective, you needed long range focused weaponry to remove the core of the long range defenses, while you needed smgs to actually cap the end zone.

Make sure that different areas of a map feel as different sections. Especially when using moving spawns. Channeling action somewhere can reduce a players feeling of freedom and size of a map.
For example on krivoirog even though the map is pretty big, because of the similar terrain it nearly feels like you play the exact same section a few times. Although on another big map like alte ziegelei orel blackday, it feels more like you're fighting over an actual piece of the world.

Weaknesses of a map can often become its strength, as long as in total there remains balance. Usually a weakness of a map or a really hard part is what a map gets known by. If all small issues are removed from a map, it leaves a map often in my impression characterless. Its the small issues that make a map loved (and hated).

In the current time don't try to balance a map too much with reinforcements, player amounts vary heavily on maps and reinf is purely decided upon server slots. In public matches there are always plenty who won't care about reinf and will waste the reinf of others. Variation in spawntime, walkingtime, loadouts, geographical advantages etc. Often work better over a wider range of player amounts.

 

[worluk]

A good map is a map which offers the possibility for tactics. Sorry, if i attack an objective from the left or right does not really count as tactic for me.

Maps should give options what route to take, more than one objective to attack at atleast one point during the map (Mod Berlin, Jucha).

As Zets said, a map also should be offering both SMG action and long distances.

 

[TWB*JimMiller]

Personally I like to see maps that takes into account the various roles and has areas specifically designed for those roles. So if a map has rifleman then it should have areas where the rifleman's weapon can be used effectively. Same goes for SMG's, MG's, etc.. A big open map with all SMG's is not making good use of the effective range of the weapon. A small close map of all bolt action rifles does not make use of the effective range of the weapon. So first and foremost the weapons have to be taken into consideration.

After that I personally like to see lots of paths to a given cap zone. This gives the availability of options to the attackers and forces the defenses to really work hard to plug the holes of the defense. This in turn allows the cap zones to be won by team using better team work.

Lastly I like to see an immersive environment. The environment should compliment the map flow while allowing the player to believe they are there.

Your mileage may vary,

P.S. Very good thread topic.

 

[Zetsumei]

Personally i can actually find it more refreshing than anything to say see close quarter maps with mostly rifle layouts or long range with smgs. They musn't overwhelm since obviously it wont use the classes the way intended. But an occasional map different in that sense, can give some freshness.

As long as its the same for both sides so no side is overpowering the other.

A good example for a close quarter map with primarily rifles would be koitos.

There are in total 3 smgs 1 mg 1 commander and a sniper. per team thats 6 people. on a 32 player server that means 10 rifleman per team. This forces people in a disadvantagous situation to make the best of it.

(although because the streets in koitos are not completely filled with objects etc it gives quite some nice spots for rifleman as well.

 

[TheAncient]

There are three main catagories of map as most of you are well aware, Tank, Infantry, and Combined Arms.

Tank maps are generally simple and there are few "bad" ones with one major issue. What can have a major impact is the force makeup of the map. Too many good maps are made and then one or both of two bad things happens. The first is someone makes all the tanks a bunch of Panthers, Tigers, JS2s and ISU-152s. The other bad thing is someone puts both the clown car and satchel charges together and usually adds Panzerfausts so that what was a good tank map becomes a farce. Large cap zones are normal for these maps and usually work good.

Infantry maps usually turn bad from too much artillary and one problem with grenades. This grenade problem happens when the map design doesn't allow the defenders a chance to keep enemy infantry out of grenade range. Each capture zone should be layed out so that a "perfect defense" is possible at one zone but not all zones. Choke points can be overdone as well.

Combined Arms maps go bad when there are too many tanks, not enough transports, and the basic design doesn't foster cooperation between Tanks and Infantry. Another problem is if there is no room to maneuver. Combined Arms maps need to "feel" alot like Tank Maps but with alot fewer Tanks but have capture zones which favor Infantry so that Tanks alone can't dig out the enemy but the Tanks are needed to get the transports to the cap zone.

 

[Sined]

Well for me i like an authentic setting.
maybe a realistic village. Arad ?
A Monastery (Shameless self promotion )
A built up area like danzig etc

But the locations of cap zones (IMHO) needs to be somewhat realistic.Parisier platz is a great map but the cap zones at the beginning are open areas of street!, IMHO cap zones should be areas of importance..ie buildings, towns objects towers.

Considering the Supreme Commanders of both sides didnt care about their soldiers, only their egos. Cap zones "could" be in stupid places on the big picture (Stalingrad,Leningrad,Berlin etc) the local objectives however "would" usually be vantage points. Tower, Heights, Bridge, AT Gun, Railway sation etc.

So mapping with these in mind makes for: Location realism (IMHO)
Realistic Playability however needs crafting. Since we arent going to die playing this game, "Run n Gunning" (Read Counter Stike etc) has too many benefits for a low ping player, which is barely offset by "Nade arty".

Now "Nade arty"is semi-realistic, many soldiers carried 12 or so Nades, but its implementation as a preventative to run n gun is unfortunate.
As i understand it, nades were used to clear every room and then soldiers rushed in firing (Nade meets Run n Gun), but as i read it the nades didnt realiably clear a room (unlike in RO) So blind SMGunning was needed.
I would like to see the first Nade landing within proximity stunning and wounding a player, ie unable to fire or move well for a second or two and(but thats off topic)

So realistic environments and objectives that make sense, a commander who wants to capture a crossroad doesnt place his troops in the crossroad, he secures the area around the crossroad and therefore the crossroad.
I think theres a DH map where the crossroad is a shell hole in middle of road. (doesnt do it for me)
But a great topic for a thread! "Ancient"

 

[Rt.Rev.I.M.Legend]

I would say the following things make a bad map:

Having to cover a huge distance from spawn just to get into the action. This happens most on maps that are mixed armour/inf with the emphasis on armour. There needs to be a much shorter respawn time on carriers and jeeps. Ogledow is quite bad for this but the map with two sides of a town split by a river and north field/south field (can't rememebr the name) is terrible for this. On a 20 minute map you spend half your time running from spawn to the action, and then of course you have to wait to respawn if you die quickly! I understand that with tanks you need some distance to cover from spawn but maybe let inf spawn closer in?

Maps clearly designed to make one side suffer
There are several maps where the attacking side has to run straight into the enemies kill zone and basically get lucky to break the attackers lines. (Note: Yes, I'm sure there are some tactics you could employ here but let's be realistic, this is a game on the internet and most people just wanna shoot things and won't work together unless the map basically encourages them to work together by offering obvious defensive and offensive routes.)

Anyway - the two maps I can think of are both arctic ones - the one where the Russians are on one side of a huge valley that the Germans have to struggle across before horrendous close-in fighting in a forest. The other is one where the Russians attack German positions which are a nightmare to break down, and after that there's a whole trench network, wire AND artillery! It's just too much.

Maps that lack focus
Again, terrible at remembering the names, but there is one map that has a few tanks and mostly infantry and is set in some kind of huge paved area with some massive ruined buildings that are incredibly roomy. The whole map is very large and exactly what you're meant to do is poorly defined.

So...what makes a good map in my opinion?

Maps with a series of chokepoints rather than just one massive one
that one side can camp.
The importance of chokepoints is that they provide focus for a map. You will see a lot of action, you can feel the ebb and flow of the fight and can tell straight away if it's going well or not. The routes to these chokepoints can be controlled by rifle and MGs, but the actual close quarters points need to exist. One of the best maps for this is another arctic one, but set in a ruined city. I think one variant of it is called "something_counterattack" and it has a set of apartments, a hotel, a church overlooking a square and a good mix of open and confined spaces. There are multiple routes, lots of opportunities for taking up good defensive positions and so on. I love this map because everyone has a part to play depending on how the fight is going.

Maps where infantry and tanks really do need each other
The map I am thinking of is a narrow street with multiple story buildings on either side. It's a night map, with an extensive sewer network and ends with a bridge that the germans must cross to win the match. The infantry can really make good use of a tank here as it's supressing fire and HE shells can really punch holes in the enemy lines. Another good example is Konigsplatz. You need good tankers AND inf to win this one.

Maps which have areas that are both defensible and attackable
This sounds kind of silly, but it's important. Some maps have areas that are too hard to attack, and can be defended easily even by unskilled players. Others have areas that are so poorly designed defensively that there's no point occupying the foxholes or trenches because you're at more danger in them than out of them! The best maps have strong defensive positions that have perhaps a few weak points, or which can be broken down by smart co-ordinated play. Berezovka, the one with the train depot and trench system, is a good example of this. I've seen the Germans unable to break down the first trench line, but I've also seen the Russians pushed desperately back to the station, which forms a good place for a last stand.

Maps that are small and vicious with multiple attack routes
Again, really sorry but I can't remember the name! There are two bridges across a river leading to a series of ruined buildings and a main square with a large ruined building in the middle. You can attack through sewers and there several different close quarters zones but also areas that MGs and snipers can dominate. A great map for me.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

[LogisticEarth]

Having a discreet checklist of what makes a map "good" is hard to make, but I think there's some general concepts that point towards a great map:

1.) First and foremost is a historical loadout of weapons. Having 15 SMGs on one team, or two-4 snipers is awful. I love maps where there's only 1-2 semi-autos, 2-4 SMGs (maybe a bit more in late-war maps for the Russians), and only one sapper (and no sappers on tank maps). Lost of bolt action rifles are always good. An abundance of SMGs fills the game up with spam and makes anyone stuck with a bolt-action really, really frustrated.

2.) The map should have a strong, linear focus in it's objectives. That is, you cap A, then cap B, then cap C. Not "cap A, B, OR C.". This keeps the team focused. HOWEVER, the map should provide multiple, viable routes to that objective. So you have a prime objective, such as "capture that church", but you could get to the church by A.) moving up through the buildings on either side of the road. B.) fight through the sewers C.) Flank around through a side alleyway.
This way, your platoon is focused on one objective, but has mulitple tactical choices on how to gain that objective. This best reflects real-world events.

3.) Artillery on infantry or combined arms maps should ALWAYS be kept to maybe one or two barrages. Endless artillery is completely unrealistic and just spams up the map. Arty should be powerful, but rare.

4.) Defensive emplacements should make sense and actually WORK. So many maps have a lot of trench systems or sandbag emplacements which are awful. A lot of times, you'l see a nice sandbag nest...with a tree or bush right in front of it. Or you'll be in a foxhole but not be able to rest your firearm on the front of it because it's built to look pretty instead of being functional in-game.

5.) Combined arms maps: These can be very versitile, but the key is this: You need to structure it so that the tanks and infantry actually can work together. Arad, for example, fails at this. The tanks basically stick to the fields and the infantry stick to the villiages. The infantry also spawns right next to the tanks, meaning the infantry has to run huge distances to get to the fight. If you're doing a wide-open CA map, then the infantry should have advanced spawns.

6.) Many maps are far too cluttered with junk in order to provide cover. Instead of dumping a bunch of massive craters, randomly placed burned out vehicles, and scattered boxes, you should have realisticly scaled, natural looking environments. Stone walls, gullies, rows of buildings, etc. all can provide great cover to advance behind without being cluttered.

7.) Cap zones should be large and emcompass the prime "feature" being capped.

So, good maps:
Kriegstadt
FestungKurland
Paiserplatz
Leningrad (although it has some flaws)
Berezina

Flawed but OK maps:
Baskova (WAY too much arty for the Russians)
Stalingrad Kessel (cramped and unfocused after Warehouses are capped)
Smolensk (Bad/scattered placement of cover, no tactical diversity)
KrasniOctobyr (unfocused caps)
Zhitomir
Rackowice

Bad Maps:
Danzig
Ogledow
Bonderavo
Barashka
Kaukasus
Kurland Kessel

 

[Zetsumei]

Even though i like some of the maps posted that offer lineair gameplay like kriegstadt, and pariserplatz. I personally gameplay wise still prefer having multiple capping options, like schutzesepp the maker of pariserplatz does now mostly in hes newer maps where teams can decide to spawn on the left or right side of the map sometimes with 1 common objective or 2 objectives. Berezina is probably a good example of what i mean capzone wise.

There shouldnt be too many objectives open at the same time, but depending on map design having 2 or 3 objectives open at the same time can give someone the opportunity for more tactical diversity.

Beside that i agree on all of your points.

Although i'm not really bothered by a lot of arty strikes on a map, even if it were say automatic rather than player controlled. Like a constant barrage.
Its what gives in this case basovka its special feeling for me, it might be a tad too much but its what makes basovka loved and hated as basovka.

Although you need to remember player amounts as well in what you say are bad or good maps.
Kryasni, Danzig and Stalingrad Kessel are great maps to play with lower player numbers. While maps like berezina, kriegstadt and pariserplatz are great with high player numbers.

I dont understand why you like festungkurland and hate kurlandkessel, both are the same map arent they with just attackers and defenders switched sides and the wirefence moved. Made by exactly the same guy as well.

 

[2fisted]

Hi Zetsumei, I'm a tank map fan but I can see why Smolensk Statlemate is a winner. It's a fun map w/ keyboard smashing action!

But when I gravitate to a CA map, I go for kriegstadt, pariserplatz, Alte, Breznia, Kiln(sigh, never up), Foy Dec and now MN Airport.

One thing I think is essential for top maps is not only the ability to flank, but concentrated points of intense violence. The sudden clash of smashing tanks and gun for topped w/ arty makes a map "come alive". Sometimes a bottle neck is ok imo.
But the more epic maps like Brez, Krieg & Alte keep me comming back because I know there is more to be milked from them, especialy as a tanker.

 

[Zetsumei]

I personally don't really like smolensk there is no variety in how its played, play it once and you know exactly how it always plays (together with the halftrack of doom if you happen to have bad mg's and ptrd). If i look at tank maps my favourite ones per example would Be Alte Ziegelei, BDJ, Debrechen etc. Simply because you have options in choosing what you are attacking.

I think action needs to be focused so that youre not in a completely empty map all the time. But even then capzones can be divided to say different floors or east and west sections. An occasional bottleneck is ok i have no issue with that, but a map that is one big bottleneck where tactical skill or teamplay doesnt matter anymore and its simply killing. But even then even if the route might be longer there should be ways around bottlenecks as well. Because if you play against a team that can work a bit half arsed together a bottleneck will never be lost in defense. And if you come to a point that is impossible to take and just need to fight there till your reinforcements run out its not that much fun. Even if you never make an attack i think people should have enough breathing space to try to attack something in multiple ways.

If you ever played the mod imagine spartakovka with as only path the nade spam alley.

 

[LogisticEarth]

I personally gameplay wise still prefer having multiple capping options, like schutzesepp the maker of pariserplatz does now mostly in hes newer maps where teams can decide to spawn on the left or right side of the map sometimes with 1 common objective or 2 objectives.

Fair point. I do enjoy maps like Stavelot and Foy in Darkest Hour. But at th same time, on public servers, it still seems to confuse other players on public servers that either results in disjointed attacks or shakey defenses. I think the key is, as you mentioned, how many caps are OPEN at one time. I think two-three is about the maximum. This of course makes a difference if you're in public play or clan play. Multiple caps just have to be done right.

Like a constant barrage.
Its what gives in this case basovka its special feeling for me.

True, but if you're trying to set that kind of atmosphere, I think a constant, or rotating automatic barrage would be better. The problem with Baskova is that arty can be placed so precisely in annoying points (like almost right on top of spawn), combined with the russians never-ending supply.

Kryasni, Danzig and Stalingrad Kessel are great maps to play with lower player numbers. While maps like berezina, kriegstadt and pariserplatz are great with high player numbers.

Very true.

I dont understand why you like festungkurland and hate kurlandkessel, both are the same map arent they with just attackers and defenders switched sides and the wirefence moved. Made by exactly the same guy as well.

Uh, are we talking about the same map? KurlandKessel is a small, straight-up infantry slog through a forest, while FestungKurland is a large, combined arms map that starts at foxholes, moves through a town and train yard, and ends up in a network of trenches. They're very different.

This is the map I'm talking about:
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26101

 

[Ulfus]

As little artficiality as possible, as much realism as possible